Wednesday, April 04, 2018

It's official: We don’t care anymore how the rest of the world views us

By William Hausdorff

Like the neighbor down the street who is gradually paying less
attention to his dress and personal hygiene, the US conservative establishment
seems to have stopped caring how the rest of the world views us.

This is another casualty of the era bracketed by Bush and
Trump, but less commented on. The importance of the US image had long been a
mainstay of mainstream political discourse in the US.If the US pulled out from Vietnam, politicians
demanded, what would the rest of the world think of US resolve in other parts
of the world? The US government needs to show it is a trusted partner that
keeps its commitments. America needs to project strength and reliability.“Peace with honor” was the mantra of the
Nixon administration as it sought to extricate the US from Vietnam.

Of course, this so-called “concern” for the image of the US
was always a pretense undermined by actual US policies.After all, the tremendous, ongoing damage being
done to the US image simply by our continuing to prosecute the Vietnam War with
attendant My Lai (and other) massacres, the “secret” invasion of Cambodia, napalm
and Agent Orange, the Christmas bombing of Hanoi in 1972, etc was reflected in massive
anti-Vietnam War and anti-US demonstrations worldwide.Yet however hypocritical, the care and
tending of the US global image nonetheless remained a strong feature of US
domestic political discourse well into the 1990s.

How
people perceive the US is admittedly not always predictable

I used to think that the US image was solely a function of
what the US government did, and how it behaved while doing it.The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Powell invasion of
Iraq under false pretenses, ignoring and ridiculing the UN armaments
inspectors’ conclusions in the process, leaving a trail of massive destruction
whose aftermath we are still dealing with, unequivocally did a real job on that
image.

But what we DON’T do also plays a major role.About ten years ago, I asked a Greek academic
why the image of the US government seemed relentlessly negative in Greece. I
expected her to cite, even 40 years later, the widely-held perception
in Greece that the US government encouraged or even sponsored the colonels’
coup in 1967.

Instead, she emphasized her belief that the US government
could have, but didn’t, prevent the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974.That invasion, ostensibly to protect the
Turkish Cypriot minority from its Greek Cypriot counterparts, led to the
de-facto partition of the island into Greek and Turkish zones that persists to
this day.

That the US image abroad can be profoundly shaped by what
the US government DIDN’T do was more vividly brought home to me in a casual conversation
I had in a Chinese temple in Malacca, Malaysia a few years back.While admiring the statues and altar, and lamenting
my limited understanding of Buddhism and Taoism, a gentleman I supposed to be
in his 70s approached me.After learning
that I was American, he expressed his strong support for the US but noted that
the US government had made one crucial error many years ago.

After a slight pause, he casually explained that the US
didn’t “finish the job” in Japan at the end of World War II, as it should have
dropped A-bombs on all the major Japanese cities. It quickly became apparent
this wasn’t some kind of horrific joke when the man proceeded to describe, with
increasing emotion, his scarring experiences as a young boy hiding for years with
his family in the jungles after the Japanese invaded the Malay Peninsula in
December, 1941.

Both the Greek and Malaysian examples illustrate that the US
image is a function both of its actions (and inactions), as well as the not-always-predictable local perspectives that others bring when gazing upon that image.

Conversely, there are some things Presidents do that end up
having less an effect on the international image than one might have imagined.One might think that President Trump’s
affairs with porn stars and Playboy models, including the allegations of hush
money and even threats to keep quiet, might trigger conservative concern about
the US image.However, most Republican
leaders seem like House Speaker Paul Ryan, who claims to be decidedly uninterested
in the Stormy Daniels allegations, perhaps partly due to lessons learned in the
Bill Clinton years.

In truth, it is difficult to argue with a straight face that
Trump’s tawdry personal behavior is any lower than that of Clinton in the 1990s,
especially when one recalls the unfortunately memorable
image of the 42nd President on the phone to members of Congress
while receiving oral sex. Although Republican leaders at the time tried to
argue that the US image would be sullied by Clinton’s behavior, it quickly
became clear that the personal sleaziness of a US President is not a significant driver of national approval ratings.Based on contemporary news reports and
anecdotal evidence, this wasn’t much different internationally either.

Despite
this complexity, there are some actions that will obviously tarnish the image
of the US

One the other hand, one would think that conservative
politicians might recognize that the unilateral withdrawal of the US from
international accords, whether the Paris climate change or the Iran accords, might
undermine the US image.However, this
argument has only rarely been voiced.

In fairness, the lack of conservative interest in the US
“upholding” its commitments is a long time coming, and perhaps really took off
with the presidency of George W. Bush.Back
in 2002, even before the Iraq invasion, Bush unilaterally withdrew from the
Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with nary a Republican voice raising a concern
about the US keeping its commitments. To be charitable, perhaps one could argue that walking away from a bilateral
agreement, particularly one with Russia, would only minimally affect US
credibility with its allies.

But the Paris Accords were signed by virtually all countries
in the world, and yet the Republican Congressional leadership actually encouraged
Trump to walk away from them.Only three Republican senators vocally supported the US staying in the accords.In what now sounds like a quaint throwback to a bygone era, one Republican
senator expressed gentle concern
that withdrawal would convey the message that

the leader
of the Republican Party is in a different spot than the rest of the world.

Similarly, our imminent withdrawal from the Iran agreement, painstakingly
negotiated with not just Iran, but also France, the UK, Germany, Russia and
China, hasn’t prompted any words from the Republican leadership about the
likelihood that our allies will trust us in the future.This silence is striking because there is some
political cover: Trump’s own Secretary of Defense James Mattis, no softie on
Iran, has explicitly supported
staying in it.

Actually, there had been one rather tepid example, albeit from a
marginalized politician:in January retiring
Republican senator Bob Corker invoked the argument
that withdrawal could undermine potential negotiations with North Korea.Only two weeks ago, as withdrawal appeared
more likely, he quickly reverted to his usual invertebrate form by claiming to
have reconsidered and rejected
his own argument.

Then there is the naming of John Bolton as National Security
Advisor, a man by all accounts so
arrogant, bellicose, mendacious, and bullying that he was blocked by both
Republicans and Democrats from being confirmed as Ambassador to the UN. As he
is one of the most disliked US political figures globally, silence from
Republican leadership on the nomination (the current position doesn’t undergo
Senate confirmation) is further indication that the image of the US is now of
minimal importance.

It is not surprising that even US allies are now openly
questioning the motives and behaviors of this government with
uncharacteristically strong language.Very recently President of France Emmanuel
Macron referred to the recent Trump moves to unilaterally impose tariffs on
steel and aluminum imports on the EU, and then to temporarily lift them to allow for "negotiations":

We don’t talk about anything
in principle when it is with a gun to the temple.

And this is from one of the few non-autocratic leaders Trump
is said to personally admire.

One
might consciously tarnish the image of the US for a “good cause,” but…

Nonetheless, it is true that one can argue the pros and cons of each of the above from a policy perspective, and decide that
antagonizing the world is “worth it.”For
example, from a very cynical viewpoint, one can understand conservative antagonism
towards climate change restrictions, as oil and gas industries, major patrons
of the Republican Party, may lose real profits.That alone, in their minds, could “justify” incurring the wrath of our
major allies.

Similarly, there is some logic behind arguments in favor of preemptive military intervention against North Korea and Iran, even if
it is opposed by virtually all of our allies.At least in principle such an attack might forestall missile attacks or other military provocations by nasty politicians in those two countries. (Never mind that our intervention may, in itself, directly trigger nuclear war.)

So what really exposes the moral bankruptcy of national
Republican leaders is their complete silence and lack of interest about how the
US looks in the Jared Kushner escapades.After repeatedly failing to fully complete his financial disclosure
form, and finally being stripped of his top-secret security clearance, the
First Son-in-Law nonetheless is allowed to continue working in the White House
and to meet with foreign leaders to discuss both US policy and his own business
interests.

Despite widely publicized financial problems, including growing
massive debts.
Despite news stories
describing how four foreign countries discussed secretly manipulating Kushner via his inexperience and business vulnerabilities. Despite a very recent report that Kushner is “in the pocket” of the Saudi crown prince.A former General explicitlytermsKushner
a “threat to US foreign policy,” but so far he has been met with silence.

It is very difficult even for me to imagine that the most
cynical of the Republican leaders, whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan, when
they sit down with a drink with their spouses or friends, could defend this
openly corrupt mingling of personal with government business.They may be completely numb from a moral
perspective, but even they--I believe--can’t put a positive spin on behavior straight out
of the textbook for the most corrupt “failed states.”

There appears to be only one explanation:Republican leaders simply don’t care anymore
about the US image.They have the same blank
facial expression with which I was once greeted by a close relative when, in a
discussion of the US invasion of Iraq, I mentioned that the US was increasingly perceived
by many Europeans as a nasty, vicious bully.

The neighbor down the street has stopped bothering to bathe
regularly, and no longer puts on clean clothes. In fact, he’s starting to
smell.This may be bringing us closer to
a time in the not-so-distant future when our US “allies” begin to conclude that
this US government itself—not Russia, not jihadists--represents the
greatest single threat to Western “civilization.”

2 comments:

This post describes the Republican sequel to "The Silence of the Lambs."

Perhaps the Constitution's role of C-I-C for the president is too political. Since my birth in 1930, there have been a lot of wars involving America, continuing almost solidly during the 21st century to date. How many presidents have been prepared for the C-I-C role? Perhaps Ike was the best prepared based upon his earlier career. While Ike's "farewell address" warned of the "military industrial complex," it was Ike who sent military advisers into the Vietnam conflict that the Colonial French could not handle. The next president, as C-I-C, was faced with issues involving Cuba that triggered Soviet confrontation, which issues had surfaced during Ike's tenure. The next president had to address the Vietnam issues, in particular the role that America might take regarding the military advisers. We know what happened. With Cuba it was a swap with the Soviets. With Vietnam, it was escalating American military. What President Kennedy may have done about Vietnam we may not know for sure. LBJ had to deal with the 1964 campaign and a hawkish Republican Barry Goldwater, doing so politically successfully. But then LBJ did not want to be the first president to suffer a defeat in war, so there was escalation. LBJ dropped out of seeking reelection in 1968, opening the door for a Republican revival with Richard Nixon, who prevailed by a slim margin over Hubert Humphrey, with promises of a secret plan for Vietnam. We know what happened in Vietnam under Nixon and to Nixon's presidency. America's withdrawal from Vietnam impacted America negatively at home and abroad for many years, including the role of the military.

Presidents are not well prepared for the C-I-C role. This is most obvious with current foreign policy. How much help does the Constitution provide? Not much, whether the president is a Democrat or a Republican. And Congress' Declaration of War power is rarely used as a check/balance.